Talk:Island Line, Isle of Wight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
Info The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Island Line IOW.

The map shown is a little misleading: it is of all the railways which once existed on the island, and there is no explanation of that Peter Shearan 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] TOC vs Line

while i appreciate that the TOC (owned by stagecoach) has / is about to be subsumed into the new South Western franchise (still called SWT IIRC), the TOC detail need to be kept (like connex south central, et al still exist). At the same time the physical line needs an article. Obviously with a TOC with just one line this wasn't an issue before but in the imminent future i believe we need to split this article. Pickle 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with split as they are basically one and the same. Simply south 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I've already rearranged the article to reflect the change. This article is now primarily about the line, and all the info about the TOC itself (as was) is in the section at the bottom. I'm not sure what a split would achieve. --82.45.163.4 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of consistency of other articles. There are lots of "line" articles and lots of TOC articles, especially defunct TOC. The article can be both (as it is now), as we don't have enough stuff to justify a split. Pickle 13:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
See also Valley Lines. Simply south 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrification system

As the rolling stock is ex-London Transport I think the voltage is 630, not 750. Biscuittin 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the tube stock uses only 3rd rail rather than 4th rail system of LUL (the running rails act as the return rather than the 4th centre rail). The Waterloo and city line didn't have a 4th rail until very recently (despite using deep level tube stock, etc). The recently defunct electric-railways.co.uk site which is normally very accurate, listed the IOW scheme of 1967 as "750 V d.c.", and it makes the the distinction in its table of the voltage increase made after WW2 from the original 660V DC to 750V DC. I'm no sparky I'm afraid so i can't go technical on you and explain it any better, or why there is such a discrepancy or how it might work, I'm afraid. Pickle 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Island line logo.gif

Image:Island line logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

As mentioned previously on this page, I think now is the time to split the section on the former train operating company into its own article, leaving this page primerily about the railway line. This is because this page has become consufing with all the different templates on it, presenting Island Line as both a current and defunct TOC. A split would help to make the information clearer, as long as each page had a link to the Island Line disambiguation page. All comments, opinions and suggestions would be appriciated. Thanks, --Jorvik 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to support this, presuambly the TOC page would have to include the curretn "sub brand" of SWT and the defunct TOC, or do you want 3 pages ??? Pickle 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just the two pages, one for the line and one for the defunct TOC, each with a sentence explaining that South West Trains are now runnings services, but with the Island Line branding retained. --Jorvik 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Have been bold and gone ahead with split, following no objections. If anyone does have any objections, go ahead and make changes but please explain your reasoning here. Thanks, --Jorvik 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related split

Do you think this should happen with the Valley Lines? Simply south 13:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
For consistancy purposes yes, althouth the articles would both be low on content. --Jorvik 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think i should bring this up on WP:Rail? Simply south 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there will hopefully be more response there. Dont't forget to leave a message at Talk:Valley Lines. --Jorvik 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have left a link on the project page with probably the main discussion happening at Talk:Valley Lines#Split?. Simply south 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)